AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 18th July, 2013 passed by the Naib Tehsildar in relation to an entry being made in terms of PA -23 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 read with the provisions of the Land Record Manual. It appears that earlier the petitioners had filed writ petition no. 38933 of 2012 in which notices were issued on 19th September, 2012 in relation to the dispute raised therein. The petition came up for consideration and the following order was passed on 15.4.2013: - "Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 9. In substance the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.4.2012 passed by the Niab tehsildar, Tehsil Chandauli, District Chandauli in setting aside the entries made in Pa.Ka.23. It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Considering the nature of the controversy involved and looking into the order impugned I find that the order impugned is a cryptic order on the face of record which reads as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... From the perusal of the order it appears that no reason has been recorded in setting aside the earlier approval. It is well settled that reason is the life of the order and any order without reason cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the petitioner may file an appropriate application for recall of the order as the same has been passed without hearing the petitioner. In case such an application is filed within two weeks along with a certified copy of the order of this Court, the same shall be considered and decided by passing a reasoned order after hearing all concerned. In view of the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no adjournment shall be sought by the petitioner except it is very urgent before the Naib Tehsildar till the petitioners' application is decided no adverse action shall be taken pursuant to the order dated 20.4.2012. With the aforesaid observation/direction the writ petition stands disposed of."
(2.) LEARNED counsel submits that inspite of the said order the respondents on 17th May, 2013 used Police Force and brutally tried to dispossess the petitioners. A contempt application was filed before this Court in which notices were issued and the concerned officials had been summoned in person. The contempt proceedings in contempt application no. 2871 of 2013 are stated to be still pending.
(3.) THE order passed in the contempt matter has also been filed as Annexure 22 to the writ petition.;